Re: keyboard/mouse programming


"Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9n73j.27769$Pv2.9035@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
So? Raising your competitors cost of doing business is a
standard American corporation practice.

Rather cynical: RRC (Raising Rivals Costs) is an illegal
anticompetitive business practice (even if hard to prove):
http://ftc.gov/be/RRCGMU.pdf


30 pages... Does it specifically say that's illegal somewhere or just that
they have conducted research into the practice from an anticompetitive
perspective such as by a firm believed to be monopolistic?

The few sections I skimmed seem to indicate that this research is highly
theoretical in nature and different from predatory pricing, monopolistic
practices, and even anticompetitive practices. I.e.,:

"It probably cannot be stressed enough that raising rivals' costs or
exclusion is not necessarily anticompetitive."

Which the authors repeat again:

"That is, that a dominant firm engages in cost-raising strategies, does
not, itself prove, as a matter of economic theory, that such strategies are
anticompetitive."

From what I've skimmed, it seems to me they just researched the idea that
RRC can support an argument for either anticompetitive or monopolistic
practices by a dominant market player, but is not specifically illegal.

Skimming... it seems the cases mentioned that actually introduced RRC into a
court of law, weren't decided on RRC theory, but on violations of existing
law and didn't set any precedent in regards to RRC.

Okay, read or skim the rest... maybe... later. Perhaps, when or if I read
it, it'll mention somewhere that it's illegal or set precedent.

economic ignorance of US politicians... MicroSoft raised the costs of
other DOSes effectively killing them and is now doing it to Linux too:
"Legacy-Free Hardware and BIOS Requirements", Winmodem's, USB, software
patents, pushing for rapid changes in PC circuitry to increase
competitors
software development time and costs, migrating to smaller specialized

As a convicted monopolist in both the US and EU (US penalties but
not judgement reversed on appeal), Microsoft must legally follow a
higher standard of behaviour lest it be subject to further action
for anti-competitive behaviour. In essence, they lost their
presumption of innocence. Still, they are formidible litigants.


MS was found to be "guilty" in the US and EU? Sorry, I was aware that they
settled only when presented with "non-guilty" settlement aggreements in the
US and EU... ;-) I don't recall the news reports of the US settlements off
hand, but I'm pretty sure the AP article said that the "non-guilty"
arrangement was part of the recently settled EU cases. Otherwise, MS
would've just gone on paying fines for decades...

But coercing hardware mfrs to make significant hardware non-operable
with competitive OSes likely would bring down the wrath of the EU
and quite possibly the US antitrust authorities.


That implies assumption of intelligence, an intuitive ability to see the
"invisible hand" at work - and - an ability prove that "it" exists somehow,
on the part of "antitrust authorities..." Most of these legal individuals,
at least in the US, aren't much brighter than our politicians when it comes
to economics. Those who are get paid more to work outside of government.
Of course, most people who have "an an intuitive ability to see the
'invisible hand' at work" actually fear the US government as "Big Brother,"
and don't work for it...


Rod Pemberton

.